Strikes are not uncommon under the Nigerian Labour Jurisprudence. In fact, it is commonly said that strike is the only language that the government (employer) understands. The legal question today is whether employees who went on a strike are entitled to payment of salaries for that period?
Answering this, it is pertinent to note that the Nigerian jurisprudence on industrial strike actions is fashioned in accordance with the English common law principle of No Work; no Pay. In Morgan v. Fry (1968) 2 QB 710 at 729, it was held that “to a layman, the position is quite clear: in a strike, the men do not work, and the employers pay no wages.”
This principle has been statutorily documented in Nigeria by virtue of Section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act. The section states:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law-
(a) where any worker takes part in a strike, he shall not be entitled to any wages or other remuneration for the period of the strike, and any such period shall not count for the purpose of reckoning the period of continuous employment and all rights dependent on continuity of employment shall be prejudicially affected accordingly.
This statutory provision came up for judicial interpretation in the case of ABDULRAHEEM & ORS v OLUFEAGBA & ORS (2006) LPELR-11817(CA). In that case, the 43 respondents were employed, at different times in different departments, as lecturers at the University of Ilorin (the 3rd appellant). They embarked on both domestic and national strikes. The appellants, by letters of cessation of appointments dated 25-05-01, terminated the appointment of the respondents.
Several issues were up for determination in that case. However, of particular relevance to this analysis, is whether they are entitled to their salaries? at the trial court, the lecturers won. However, on appeal, they lost by a majority of 2-1 decision, with OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A (as he then was) dissenting.
Giving its rationale, the Court held that “it was inconsiderate for the lower Court to award them such salaries and allowances in fact, it is illegal in fact it is inequitable for the lower Court to have ordered the payment of the respondents after withholding their services from the 3rd appellant. Equity does not do inequity.”
Speaking in the same vein, the Court further held that “the order of the learned trial Judge was given in clear violation of the provisions of Section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Dispute Act. It is my considered view that in the light of the unambiguous provision of the law stated supra…. the award of the salaries and allowances to the respondents by the trial Judge is not only illegal but also inequitable.”
In conclusion, the principle of law is that employees who embark on a strike shall not be entitled to remuneration or wages.
Thank you for reading. See you next week.
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 